How Useful Are Digital Health Terms for Outcomes Research? An ISPOR Special Interest Group Report

Automation of systematic reviews of biomedical literature: a scoping review of studies indexed in PubMed

BACKGROUND

The demand for high-quality systematic literature reviews (SRs) for evidence-based medical decision-making is growing. SRs are costly and require the scarce resource of highly skilled reviewers. Automation technology has been proposed to save workload and expedite the SR workflow. We aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of SR automation studies indexed in PubMed, focusing on the applicability of these technologies in real world practice.

METHODS

In November 2022, we extracted, combined, and ran an integrated PubMed search for SRs on SR automation. Full-text English peer-reviewed articles were included if they reported studies on SR automation methods (SSAM), or automated SRs (ASR). Bibliographic analyses and knowledge-discovery studies were excluded. Record screening was performed by single reviewers, and the selection of full text papers was performed in duplicate. We summarized the publication details, automated review stages, automation goals, applied tools, data sources, methods, results, and Google Scholar citations of SR automation studies.

RESULTS

From 5321 records screened by title and abstract, we included 123 full text articles, of which 108 were SSAM and 15 ASR. Automation was applied for search (19/123, 15.4%), record screening (89/123, 72.4%), full-text selection (6/123, 4.9%), data extraction (13/123, 10.6%), risk of bias assessment (9/123, 7.3%), evidence synthesis (2/123, 1.6%), assessment of evidence quality (2/123, 1.6%), and reporting (2/123, 1.6%). Multiple SR stages were automated by 11 (8.9%) studies. The performance of automated record screening varied largely across SR topics. In published ASR, we found examples of automated search, record screening, full-text selection, and data extraction. In some ASRs, automation fully complemented manual reviews to increase sensitivity rather than to save workload. Reporting of automation details was often incomplete in ASRs.

CONCLUSIONS

Automation techniques are being developed for all SR stages, but with limited real-world adoption. Most SR automation tools target single SR stages, with modest time savings for the entire SR process and varying sensitivity and specificity across studies. Therefore, the real-world benefits of SR automation remain uncertain. Standardizing the terminology, reporting, and metrics of study reports could enhance the adoption of SR automation techniques in real-world practice.

Leveraging sensor-based functional outcomes to enhance understanding of the patient experience: challenges and opportunities

INTRODUCTION

Sensor-based digital health technology (DHT) has emerged as a promising means to assess patient functioning within and outside clinical trials. Sensor-based functional outcomes (SBFOs) provide valuable insights that complement other measures of how a patient feels or functions to enhance understanding of the patient experience to inform medical product development.

AREAS COVERED

This perspective paper provides recommendations for defining SBFOs, discusses the core evidence required to support SBFOs to inform decision-making, and considers future directions for the field.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

The clinical outcome assessment (COA) development process provides an important starting point for developing patient-centered SBFOs; however, given the infancy of the field, SBFO development may benefit from a hybrid approach to evidence generation by merging exploratory data analysis with patient engagement in measure development. Effective SBFO development requires combining unique expertise in patient engagement, measurement and regulatory science, and digital health and analytics. Challenges specific to SBFO development include identifying concepts of interest, ensuring measurement of meaningful aspects of health, and identifying thresholds for meaningful change. SBFOs are complementary to other COAs and, as part of an integrated evidence strategy, offer great promise in fostering a holistic understanding of patient experience and treatment benefits, particularly in real-world settings.

Developing a Program Costs Checklist of Digital Health Interventions: A Scoping Review and Empirical Case Study

INTRODUCTION

The rate of development and complexity of digital health interventions (DHIs) in recent years has to some extent outpaced the methodological development in economic evaluation and costing. Particularly, the choice of cost components included in intervention or program costs of DHIs have received scant attention. The aim of this study was to build a literature-informed checklist of program cost components of DHIs. The checklist was next tested by applying it to an empirical case, Mamma Mia, a DHI developed to prevent perinatal depression.

METHOD

A scoping review with a structured literature search identified peer-reviewed literature from 2010 to 2022 that offers guidance on program costs of DHIs. Relevant guidance was summarized and extracted elements were organized into categories of main cost components and their associated activities following the standard three-step approach, that is, activities, resource use and unit costs.

RESULTS

Of the 3448 records reviewed, 12 studies met the criteria for data extraction. The main cost categories identified were development, research, maintenance, implementation and health personnel involvement (HPI). Costs are largely considered to be context-specific, may decrease as the DHI matures and vary with number of users. The five categories and their associated activities constitute the checklist. This was applied to estimate program costs per user for Mamma Mia Self-Guided and Blended, the latter including additional guidance from public health nurses during standard maternal check-ups. Excluding research, the program cost per mother was more than double for Blended compared with Self-Guided (€140.5 versus €56.6, 2022 Euros) due to increased implementation and HPI costs. Including research increased the program costs to €190.8 and €106.9, respectively. One-way sensitivity analyses showed sensitivity to changes in number of users, lifespan of the app, salaries and license fee.

CONCLUSION

The checklist can help increase transparency of cost calculation and improve future comparison across studies.

The PICOTS-ComTeC Framework for Defining Digital Health Interventions: An ISPOR Special Interest Group Report

OBJECTIVES

Digital health definitions are abundant, but often lack clarity and precision. We aimed to develop a minimum information framework to define patient-facing digital health interventions (DHIs) for outcomes research.

METHODS

Definitions of digital-health-related terms (DHTs) were systematically reviewed, followed by a content analysis using frameworks, including PICOTS (population, intervention, comparator, outcome, timing, and setting), Shannon-Weaver Model of Communication, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Measures, and the World Health Organization's Classification of Digital Health Interventions. Subsequently, we conducted an online Delphi study to establish a minimum information framework, which was pilot tested by 5 experts using hypothetical examples.

RESULTS

After screening 2610 records and 545 full-text articles, we identified 101 unique definitions of 67 secondary DHTs in 76 articles, resulting in 95 different patterns of concepts among the definitions. World Health Organization system (84.5%), message (75.7%), intervention (58.3%), and technology (52.4%) were the most frequently covered concepts. For the Delphi survey, we invited 47 members of the ISPOR Digital Health Special Interest Group, 18 of whom became the Delphi panel. The first, second, and third survey rounds were completed by 18, 11, and 10 respondents, respectively. After consolidating results, the PICOTS-ComTeC acronym emerged, involving 9 domains (population, intervention, comparator, outcome, timing, setting, communication, technology, and context) and 32 optional subcategories.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-facing DHIs can be specified using PICOTS-ComTeC that facilitates identification of appropriate interventions and comparators for a given decision. PICOTS-ComTeC is a flexible and versatile tool, intended to assist authors in designing and reporting primary studies and evidence syntheses, yielding actionable results for clinicians and other decision makers.

Professional-Facing Digital Health Solutions for the Care of Patients With Chronic Pain: Protocol for a Systematic Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is a highly prevalent condition and one of the most common reasons why people seek health care. As a result, chronic pain has a significant personal and economic burden. The COVID-19 pandemic has aggravated the situation for patients with chronic pain through increased risk factors (eg, anxiety or depression) as well as decreased access to health care. Digital health solutions to support people with chronic pain are becoming increasingly popular. Most of the research has focused on patient-facing digital health solutions, although it is clear that the involvement of health and care professionals is crucial in chronic pain care. Certainly, digital health solutions intended for the use of health and care professionals in the care of patients with chronic pain (ie, professional facing) exist, for example, for clinical decision support; however, no review has investigated the studies reporting these interventions.

OBJECTIVE

The overall aim of this scoping review is to identify the available professional-facing digital health solutions for the purpose of chronic pain management. The objectives of this review are to investigate the components, target populations, and user settings of the available professional-facing digital solutions; health and care professionals' perspectives on using digital health solutions (if reported); the methods in which the digital health solutions are developed; and the outcomes of using professional-facing digital health solutions.

METHODS

Databases including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Inspec will be searched for studies reporting professional-facing digital health solutions for chronic pain care, using a comprehensive search strategy developed for each of the specific databases. A total of 2 independent reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts for review inclusion and then conduct full-text screening. Any conflicts in study inclusion will be resolved by a third reviewer at each stage of the screening process. Following data extraction and quality assessment, a qualitative content analysis of the results will be conducted. This review will identify the available professional-facing digital health solutions for chronic pain management. The results of this review are likely to be heterogeneous in terms of content (ie, the digital solutions will serve a variety of purposes, settings, target populations, etc) and methods (ie, experimental and nonexperimental designs).

RESULTS

The review is expected to finish in March 2024 and published in the summer of 2024.

CONCLUSIONS

This protocol outlines the need for a scoping review to identify professional-facing digital health solutions for the management of chronic pain. Results from this review will contribute to the growing field of research into the utility of digital health for chronic pain management.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/51311.

International practices in health technology assessment and public financing of digital health technologies: recommendations for Hungary

Background

Evaluating and integrating digital health technologies is a critical component of a national healthcare ecosystem in the 2020s and is expected to even increase in significance.

Design

The paper gives an overview of international practices on public financing and health technology assessment of digital health technologies (DHTs) in five European Union (EU) countries and outlines recommendations for country-level action that relevant stakeholders can consider in order to support uptake of digital health solutions in Hungary. A scoping review was carried out to identify and gather country-specific classifications and international practices on the financing DHTs in five pioneering EU countries: Germany, France, Belgium, the United Kingdom and Finland.

Results

Several frameworks have been developed for DHTs, however there is no single, unified framework or method for classification, evaluation, and financing of digital health technologies in European context. European countries apply different taxonomy, use different assessment domains and regulations for the reimbursement of DHTs. The Working Group of the Hungarian Health Economic Society recommends eight specific points for stakeholders, importantly taking active role in shaping common clinical evidence standards and technical quality criteria across in order for common standards to be developed in the European Union single market.

Conclusion

Specificities of national healthcare contexts must be taken into account in decisions to allocate public funds to certain therapies rather than others.

Access and reimbursement pathways for digital health solutions and in vitro diagnostic devices: Current scenario and challenges

Objectives

Digital therapeutics (DTx) are innovative solutions that use meaningful data to provide evidence-based decisions for the prevention, treatment, and management of diseases. Particular attention is paid to software-based in vitro diagnostics (IVDs). With this point of view, a strong connection between DTx and IVDs is observed.

Methods

We investigated the current regulatory scenarios and reimbursement approaches adopted for DTx and IVDs. The initial assumption was that countries apply different regulations for the access to the market and adopt different reimbursement systems for both DTx and IVDs. The analysis was limited to the US, European countries (Germany, France, and UK), and Australia due to maturity in digital health product adoption and regulatory processes, and recent regulations related to IVDs. The final aim was to provide a general comparative overview and identify those aspects that should be better addressed to support the adoption and commercialization of DTx and IVDs.

Results

Many countries regulate DTx as medical devices or software integrated with a medical device, and some have a more specific pathway than others. Australia has more specific regulations classifying software used in IVD. Some EU countries are adopting similar processes to the Digital Health Applications (DiGA) under Germany's Digitale-Versorgung Gesetz (DVG) law, which deems DTx eligible for reimbursement during the fast access pathway. France is working on a fast-track system to make DTx available to patients and reimbursable by the public system. The US retains some coverage through private insurance, federal and state programs like Medicaid and Veterans Affairs, and out-of-pocket spending. The updated Medical Devices Regulation (MDR) and In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR) in the EU includes a classification system specifying how software integrated with medical devices, and IVDs specifically must be regulated.

Conclusion

The outlook for DTx and IVDs is changing as they are becoming more technologically advanced, and some countries are adapting their device classifications depending on specific features. Our analysis showed the complexity of the issue demonstrating how fragmented are regulatory systems for DTx and IVDs. Differences emerged in terms of definitions, terminology, requested evidence, payment approaches and the overall reimbursement landscape. The complexity is expected to have a direct impact on the commercialization of and access to DTx and IVDs. In this scenario, willingness to pay of different stakeholders is a key theme.